[schulken]

This scenario was related to me recently. At a regional ACBL tournament last year, a contestant opened the bidding 2♦. Since the partnership agreement was that such a call was Flannery, his partner alerted the call. Upon hearing the alert and prior to LHO calling, bidder said, "Oops!" and bid 3♦. After being summoned and LHO not accepting the change of call, the TD ruled the 2♦ call stood and bidder's partner must respond to a Flannery opening, i.e., not using the UI from partner to choose a LA.

My question is, what does "Oops" mean? It seems as though it could be a mechanical error - 2 and 3 are close to each other in the bid box. I believe it's more likely the bidder forgot they were playing Flannery, but it seems punitive to conclude that without at least hearing him say that he meant to pull the 3♦card. I can't think of another example (other than a Mini-Roman 2♦ opening) where there could be arguments made either for mistaken call or mechanical error since he was jolted awake by his partner's alert. It's hard for me to believe that the NOS would be damaged by allowing the call to be changed to 3♦ since his hand should present a weak hand with long ♦. One person I spoke with suggested the bidder should have 7, but I would open 3♦ with only 6 when I was playing Mini-Roman, so I don't think the number is important. Is this an example of where we would tend to expect more from a contestant who uses conventional bids, i.e., he's not allowed to make a mechanical error?

I would also appreciate clarification of the meaning of the last sentence of L25A1. It strikes me that is the "appropriate law".

Thanks for your thoughts.

[blackshoe]

"What does 'oops' mean?" should have been the table director's question as well. If, after investigation, the TD determines that the 2♦ call was unintended, then Law 25A applies, the substitution stands, and the 2♦ call "never happened".

If the director determines that the 2♦ call was not unintended, then Law 25A does not apply, Law 25B does. In that case, the director should (as he did) offer offender's LHO the opportunity to accept the substitution. When LHO declines, the TD applies Law 25B2, canceling the 3♦ call. The table director's instructions about "not using UI" strikes me as a somewhat clumsy way of explaining Law 73C's "you must make every effort to avoid using UI". Note that the opener should receive similar instruction, since his partner's alert is UI to him.

It seems likely to me that opener forgot they were playing Flannery, in which case 25A does not apply, but as I said, the TD should investigate.

Whether the opening bidder has six or seven diamonds is not really relevant. The choice whether to accept the change is entirely LHO's, and others' opinion of that choice does not matter to the ruling.

Nobody is "not allowed to make a mechanical error". Every case is investigated and decided on its own merits.

The "appropriate law" phrase in the last sentence of Law 25A1 refers to situations where the substituted call is an infraction of another law, for example, it may be insufficient, in which case Law 27 applies.

[bluejak]

I do not understand why the opening poster thinks it is harsh when someone makes a stupid error and has to suffer for it. Bidding 2♦ instead of 3♦ may be a mechanical error, but the odds are at least ten to one that it is not, that he just forgot for a moment, and why should he not suffer?

The idea of the opponents not being damaged by a change to 3♦ is just wrong. Let me see if I can give you a similar case for you to consider.

Declarer is in 7NT, and has a two way finesse for the ♦Q, and finesses and it loses. He says "Oops: I mean to finesse the other way." Is he allowed to change it? No? Now think of why you think he should be allowed to change it. If you allow him to change it you might say "But the opponents have not been damaged". Of course they have: when players do silly things why should their opponents not gain? If you do not allow them to gain you have damaged them.

When you change your mind you may not change a call. That is not unfair: it is both the Law and natural justice: the evidence suggests the TD was right.